Generate a structured brief — facts, issues, held, reasoning, and significance — for this case in seconds. Or browse the verbatim judgment via the source links below.
Subject_1 Agent and Client Subject_2 Money Handed by Person Accused of a Crime to his Agent for the Purpose of Preparing for his Defence Subject_3 Revocable Mandate Subject_4 Sequestration of Client — Accounting by Agent.
Bankruptcy — Arrestment within Sixty Days of Sequestration — Bankruptcy Act 1856 (19 and 20 Vict. cap. 79), sec. 108. Facts: A person apprehended on a criminal charge handed money to his agent with instructions to prepare for his defence, and also to pay on his behalf any sum he might direct. His estates were sequestrated shortly thereafter, and before the trial took place.
Held that the case was ruled by that of Pollitt , 1893, L.R., 1 Q.B. 175 and 455, that the money remained under the client's control, that the mandate was revocable at his will and fell by his sequestration, and that after sequestration his agent held the moneys entrusted to him for behoof of the creditors, and was bound to account therefor to the trustee in bankruptcy.
The 108th section of the Bankruptcy Act provides that “No arrestment … of the funds … of the bankrupt on and after the sixtieth day prior to the sequestration shall be effectual; and such funds … shall be made forthcoming to the trustee.”
Held that an arrestment used within sixty days of sequestration is not absolutely ineffectual. It creates no preference in favour of the arresting creditor, but the arrestee must account for money so arrested, and make it forthcoming to the trustee in bankruptcy.
Auto-extracted from BAILII. Full structured brief in progress — the source links below give you the verbatim judgment in the meantime.
Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.
Common Room
0 comments · About the Common Room →
No comments yet — start the discussion.
Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.